I’m Smarter Than You Because You Liked Jackass Two
It seems like a lot of movie sites are baffled by Jackass Two’s more than fair weekend box office numbers. Not only are people questioning the artistic merit of Johnny Knoxville and his gang’s stunts and gags, but the taste of the movie going public who’ve shelled out their hard earned money to watch a group of guys annihilate their genitals. It’s this personal attack on taste that has sort of annoyed me. People seem to think that the brainless and disgusting humour of Jackass is some sort of tool by which you can rate the intelligence of those who laugh at it. Don’t get me wrong, I do think that bad taste exists, and I’m not one to hide behind the argument that all films are subjective. Just because you have the right to like something I hate doesn’t mean that I don’t have the right to think you’re wrong. BUT, what is it with these self-absorbed critics using their distaste for reality television and Jackass Two as a gauge for their own intelligence?
I will openly admit that I saw Jackass One AND Two and had some of the best laughs i’ve ever experienced in a theatre. I’m generally not a fan of gross-out humour, but I do find the ridiculousness of the actions and reactions in these films completely infectious and hilarious. Does this mean that I have horrible taste in film? I don’t appreciate art? That I’m an idiot? I know exactly what I’m getting into with this film, and I know there’s absolutely no nutritional value attatched. Do you really think this movie is being mistaken for groundbreaking cinema? For every fanboy that wets his pants at the sight of the new Megatron photos or the latest Batman casting rumours, there’s a third tier of film snobbery that thinks they’re smarter than YOU, writing off your funny book fiction as nothing more than kids’ stuff. And for that third tier, there’s a fourth, and so on, and so on. So just relax. Jackass is not going to ruin the art of film forever. But if you still feel raw about it all, just remember that Michael Bay’s Transformers: The Movie is right around the corner, ready to save cinema!
Comments (36)
I will admit that I never liked Jackass much when it was on MTV, but part of that was because there was such a rash of stunt shows at the time and Jackass seemed like the least interesting of the bunch. I much preferred Tom Green. But look where Tom Green is now, right? He’s filming his leg surgery for his online TV show. Hardly cutting edge stuff.
The Jackass movies propelled these guys to another level for me, and I think it proved that they have some pretty creative ideas. It definitely helps that there’s a group of them, with varying personalities, egging each other on.
I am surprised there are still a lot of people who haven’t bought in to the Jackass concept. I mean, if it’s too edgy or gross for you, I can accept that. But just to write it off because it’s too “low brow” would lead me to assume you probably haven’t given the show or the movies a chance. It’s hard not to get hooked.
Posted by Sean on September 25th, 2006I never watched the TV show and the first movie came in under my radar but when I finally rented it, I couldn’t believe how hilarious it was. Yes, it’s stupid but OH so funny.
I didn’t manage to get out to see it this weekend and all indications suggest that it’ll be added to my rental que but I completely agree that it doesn’t detract from an individual’s intelectuality. I know PhD’s who read trashy romances. Does that make them any less “smart”? I don’t think so. I say let the high brow critics think what they will. As it is, a large chunck of the population hasn’t really listened to them in years.
Posted by themarina on September 25th, 2006i dont like all of Jackass, and there are many of them I dont like personally. but its still funny to me overall…
Posted by Goon on September 25th, 2006its like candy. you know its not necessarily good for you, but that doesnt mean it doesnt taste good.
I hate how “I like it” becomes a defence of a product’s quality.
“So what if it’s a movie about jocks hurting themselves and [SPOILER] drinking HORSE SEMEN? [/SPOILER] If I like it, it obviously has value.”
What’s the next “frontier,” anyhow?
Posted by Phil on September 25th, 2006I don’t think anyone is arguing that Jackass has any value outside of pure entertainment. I also prefer a little more explanation behind what people like/dislike…but i think it’s just as lazy to say you don’t like something because you’re more intelligent then it’s typical audience.
Posted by Jay C. on September 25th, 2006I feel sorry for the personal abuse jackass fans have to suffer through everyday.
I don’t know what to think about jackass. There’s something about people who are utterly untalented becoming famous that does not sit well with me. At least reality shows generally end up showcasing people with talent.
I think TV and movies should be preserved for people who actually have something to offer. Then again, not many people would submit themselves to these stunts, and maybe the fact that these retards (bam margera im looking at you) will, can be considered a talent.
Posted by Henrik on September 25th, 2006Well talent is a funny thing, because there’s many people who could argue that rap music is talentless, jackson pollock paintings are talentless, performance art is talentless…
In musical terms, there’s a difference between the talented guitar player who can play complex classical compositions PERFECTLY and those others who may not be great at playing guitar, but can write an awfully catchy and original tune.
Posted by Jay C. on September 25th, 2006I don’t think many people would argue that rap music is talentless. As a genre. At least anybody who has any sense of what an argument is. You can not write off a total genre.
I get your point, and this may be exactly the kind of argument you are tired of, but are you really comparing Jackass to a Jackson Pollock painting? I don’t think that is a high-brow argument, because contrary to popular belief, you do not have to be a high-brow’ed stuck-up-your-nose elitist to appreciate Jackson Pollock.
The difference is though, that Jackson Pollock did something that nobody else could do. That is proven history. If everybody else could do it, he would not be famous. Jackass does things anybody could do. There is nothing artistic involved in the movie-making side of it, and the things that they shoot are not something that only they would be able to contribute to the world.
As for the guitar analogy, there is a distinct difference between the two types. I would call the first guy a craftsman, and the second guy an artist. To be able to play something somebody else made perfectly is a craft. It takes finger-training. To take something like a guitar, and use it to create something new and unique, that is art. I don’t care how good or bad the thing you create is, it is still art, and with luck you will reach an audience.
Posted by Henrik on September 25th, 2006“I don’t think many people would argue that rap music is talentless. As a genre. At least anybody who has any sense of what an argument is. You can not write off a total genre.”
Tom, you want to chime in here?
“are you really comparing Jackass to a Jackson Pollock painting?”
Not at all. I’m saying that there’s people out there that don’t appreciate abstract things.
“I don’t care how good or bad the thing you create is, it is still art, and with luck you will reach an audience.”
That doesn’t apply to Jackass?
Posted by Jay C. on September 25th, 2006No because they are not creating things that are personal or even unique.
Anybody can do what they do. Surely nobody would challenge that statement.
Posted by Henrik on September 25th, 2006Not all entertainment has to be personal or unique. I think you’re mixing Jackass up into art when it’s simply entertainment.
Sure anybody could do what they do, but very few would, and now with the charm or sense of humour that many of them display.
Posted by Jay C. on September 25th, 2006Well, you asked why I did not consider Jackass art… So you are as guilty as I am of mixing them up.
Posted by Henrik on September 25th, 2006I did?
“I don’t think anyone is arguing that Jackass has any value outside of pure entertainment.”
I’m just saying that I find it lame that people who don’t think the film has any value would pass judgement on those who think it was entertaining. It’s entertainment on the same level as gladitorial games, freak shows, circus acts and AMERICA’S FUNNIEST HOME VIDEOS. Pure entertainemtn for entertainments sake. No hidden meanings, no expectations…just idiots. And if you can convince me that i in fact did NOT enjoy the film, then you have won.
Posted by Jay C. on September 25th, 2006I don’t disagree with you. But one could argue that Michael Bay’s transformers is in the same category.. So why slam that?
You did ask…
- “I don’t care how good or bad the thing you create is, it is still art, and with luck you will reach an audience.â€
That doesn’t apply to Jackass? -
Posted by Henrik on September 25th, 2006Don’t get me wrong, I think Jackass is hit and miss and not always completely riveting entertainment. But let me just say that for me it was Jackass The Movie that convinced me they did actually have some measure of talent, that they were, in fact, doing something that not just anyone off the street could do just as well. Proof of this is the fact there have been a number of copycat stunt shows that just didn’t catch on.
The movie works as a feature film. It has pacing and editing, running gags and build up. The second one even moreso. The Jackass posse are funny and charismatic and do what they do in a way that is very likeable and amusing. They come up with some pretty creative stunts and pranks. The camerawork requires some measure of skill in the same vein as documentary filmmaking.
I guess what I’m saying is that, as ridiculous as it sounds, I do actually think the Jackass movies could pass for art on some level.
In response to Phil’s earlier post as well… I don’t think Jackass The Movie has value just because I like it and that’s that. I think it has value because I actually appreciate the skill that went into its construction, and I realize that there’s more at work behind the scenes than many people will give them credit for. That is all.
Posted by Sean on September 25th, 2006Jay C.
Best rap ever done!
http://www.break.com/movies/weird_al_white_and_nerdy.html
Posted by Baychuk on September 25th, 2006As far as talent, it might be worth noting that Academy Award nominated director Spike Jonze is a co-creator of the series and has appeared in both films and the tv show on numerous occasions.
Posted by Jay C. on September 26th, 2006Jay,
Today I put up a review of Waiting. . . a film that you may or may not have seen. It is a “low-brow” comedy that I found hysterical. In my review I compared the total gross of that film with the opening take of Jackass 2. I don’t pass judgment on anyone in spite of what people have said in the past, but it does bother me that audiences continue to reward stylaistic “entertainment” over things that have more substance to them. I saw the original Jackass. I didn’t like it. Seeing a man eat his own urine on a snowcone appeals to no part of my psyche, either high or low. That’s just me. But how can you dismiss the empirical evidence that suggests audiences are in fact getting “more stupid” when a film like Jackass 2 gets these kinds of numbers but Clerks II, a film that many on-line critics praised up and down for its script yet had its own share of gross out jokes, struggled to pull in $26 (?) million.
I’m not going to say that my dislike of this series makes me any more intelligent, but perhaps you can shed some light on who exactly is annoying you. What bothers me is not that people like Jackass; what bothers me is that they don’t bother to seek out anything else.
Posted by Dave on September 26th, 2006Well I hated Clerks 2, so I can’t really support that arguement. As far as Jackass 2, it’s main target audience is teens, and we all know teens are the ones with the disposable income…so is it really so shocking that this film would do well? And i’m just wondering which people that like Jackass aren’t seeiking out anything else. I loved the movie, but i don’t limit myself to skate videos and punk’d. If I had any reason to be concerned that people are getting dumber, i would single out the cookie cutter Hollywood teen comedies or romantic comedies that are passing themselves off as actual cinema.
As for who’s annoying me…
“As H.L. Mencken acidly noted, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the general public.”
-Daniel M. Kimmel
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
“Here’s a way to spend 90 minutes completely devoid of social benefit.”
-M. K. Terrell
Christian Science Monitor
“Only adolescent boys — the movie’s target audience, despite a well-earned R rating — will appreciate the most extreme gross-out gags, none of which can be described in a family newspaper.”
-Elizabeth Weitzman
New York Daily News
“Yes, a film about a bunch of guys who run around and go out of their way to cause harm to themselves is the kind of flick people were in the mood to see. Um, not for nothing, but isn’t that just a little bit scary? So, I ask you: Who’s the real Jackass? Us for shelling out money to see these morons in action or Johnny Knoxville and the gang for thinking what they’re doing is actually cinematic entertainment?”
-Erik Davis
Posted by Jay C. on September 26th, 2006Cinematical
As for people not bothering to seek out new things…i’m sure there’s many people out there who say the same things about horror fans, sci-fi fans, comic book film geeks…
It’s all relative. You’re always going to question other people’s taste, especially when it contradicts your own. But to claim that you don’t like something simply because you think a film is only catering to idiots is not only insulting to the small number of non-idiots who DID like jackass, but is also a lazy critical analysis of a film.
Do you really expect the 17-19 year old target audience of Jackass to expand their horizons and support the indies?
Posted by Jay C. on September 26th, 2006Sorry, for the multiple posts, but i’m at work so i have to do this in segments…
“But how can you dismiss the empirical evidence that suggests audiences are in fact getting “more stupid†when a film like Jackass 2 gets these kinds of numbers but Clerks II, a film that many on-line critics praised up and down for its script yet had its own share of gross out jokes, struggled to pull in $26 (?) million.”
For what it’s worth, Clerks 2 got a 62% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is exactly where Jackass Two is currently sitting.
Posted by Jay C. on September 26th, 2006This rap deserves “props” as well.
http://www.atomfilms.com/af/content/gangsta_rap_se
Dem’s be skankin’ homey!
Posted by Baychuk on September 26th, 2006I think the Clerks 2 comparison only proves the point, that it’s not the “low brow” aspect of Jackass that brings people in. There’s something else at work too.
It’s hard to defend some of the segments in Jackass, but when people criticize it they always bring up stuff like “eating cow shit” or “drinking horse semen”, while conveniently leaving out some of the more ingenious sketches they do like the terrorist prank, or dressing up as old people and acting inappropriately.
Posted by Sean on September 26th, 2006“If I had any reason to be concerned that people are getting dumber, i would single out the cookie cutter Hollywood teen comedies or romantic comedies that are passing themselves off as actual cinema.”
How many of those type films can you name that opened to $29 million this year? Can you even count them on one hand? That’s the real issue here. You say that there’s nothing groundbreaking here and that the target audience is not expected to be diverse in how they spend their money. Who’s dismissing an entire generation now? I’m not going to say you’re an idiot for liking this and hating Clerks II (which is a strong assessment of *any* film), but look at the facts. Jackass makes money and other, in my opinion more worthy, films don’t. Who is repsonsible for box office receipts? Audiences! The bigger the audience, the bigger the receipts. Just explain to me, then, why a film that appeals to the (gasp!) lowest common denominator can get it over 3000 screens and yet a “smart” comedy like Little Miss Sunshine peaks at 1600. If you were personally offended by these critics, why did you then say the movie was targeted to 17-19 year old males who aren’t expected to know any better? You are in the minority and you admit it. If Jackass is the only common ground you can find with the so called “target demographic”, dude Jackass, then why all this fucking conversation?
Posted by Dave on September 26th, 2006“How many of those type films can you name that opened to $29 million this year? Can you even count them on one hand?”
One, Jackass Two. Not sure how much the first film made.
“Just explain to me, then, why a film that appeals to the (gasp!) lowest common denominator can get it over 3000 screens and yet a “smart†comedy like Little Miss Sunshine peaks at 1600.”
I’m not sure where i sit in there because I liked BOTH films, but for compeltely different reasons. But I suppose I have to pick a side?
One thing I find funny is that you are so quick to write off Jackass when on your own site (www.eclecticgamer.com, check it out) you review video games (a form of entertainment shared with that lowest common denomitator) and REALITY TELEVISION shows, two forms of entertainment that are CONSTANTLY questioned in regards to their intellectual value. But YOU like those forms of entertainment right? And you also like “smart” films. So it IS possible to like both and not be a part of the lowest common denominator. You bring up Clerks 2. How many people slammed THAT film because of the donkey sex? I’m sure Joel Seigel thinks that only idiots could find any entertainment value in something so disgusting.
“You are in the minority and you admit it. If Jackass is the only common ground you can find with the so called “target demographicâ€, dude Jackass, then why all this fucking conversation?”
Because this is a movie blog.
Posted by Jay C. on September 26th, 2006Those two words are not my favorites in the english language right now. I’m going to let that dig at video games slide. Video games require a ton more concentration and active participation to enjoy than a movie like. . .you know what. Forget it. Melt was right. Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. You might be right, but you’re still retarded. :p
Posted by Dave on September 26th, 2006Its more retarded when too much effort is placed upon whether or not Jackass 2 or Clerks 2 is the better movie. LOL
Posted by Baychuk on September 26th, 2006I take offense to that statement. To quote an oscar-winning performance:
“Don’t call me stupid”
Posted by Henrik on September 26th, 2006Dave’s statement. Not the glorified golden nuggets of wisdom offered up by the worshipper of beheadings.
Posted by Henrik on September 26th, 2006I kind of lost track of what you guys were debating anymore but the one thing I will add is that most of the people who went to see Jackass would probably never go see Little Miss Sunshine or another more deserving movie in its place. If Jackass wasn’t around they simply wouldn’t have gone to the movies last weekend… which is why the box office has been so dead over the last couple of years. They’ve got plenty of other entertainment at their fingertips.
But in the grand scheme of things it’s just one movie, and I don’t think it’s hurting anyone. It’s actually a nice alternative to a lot of what’s been in theatres this year. I don’t think anyone’s saying you have to like Jackass 2, we’re just saying that it’s not necessarily a sign of human devolution either.
Is it wrong to enjoy a little “junk culture” every now and then? No, it’s not. And if you read the book Everything Bad Is Good For You, you might even believe that it can be educational too. (Although I’d definitely be curious to see if Steven Johnson defends Jackass in the same way he defends video games and reality TV.)
Posted by Sean on September 26th, 2006Don’t get me wrong, i’m not saying video games aren’t art or are completey devoid of intellectual stimulation. I work on one for a living, so I would definitely be taking a jab at myself in that regard. I’m just saying the criticism sounds the same to me.
Posted by Jay C. on September 26th, 2006I haven’t seen Jackass 2 yet as it’s not out here yet, but I have seen Clerk 2 which I loved. I’m a huge Smith fan and he didn’t dissapoint with the sequal to Clerks 2. I’ll suppose I’ll see Jackass 2, I’m in the cinemia like 5 times a week anyways and I’ll be working there from friday so free movies(on spare time) and posters YIPEEEEEEEE!!!
Posted by wolf on September 26th, 2006there isnt anything else in theaters like jackass and hasnt been since the first one, and yet people act like the world decides to see Jackass destroy arty movies every week….
when the Covenant debuted that was way more deserving of scorn than Jackass.
Posted by Goon on September 26th, 2006I think most of the people who complain about it taking away from art-movies are untalented wannabe-directors or screenwriters who still can’t understand why they haven’t been discovered.
Posted by Henrik on September 27th, 2006Henrik
September 26th, 2006 16:52
29
Dave’s statement. Not the glorified golden nuggets of wisdom offered up by the worshipper of beheadings.
Oh, I’m sorry. Did I piss on your cornflakes by suggesting that the discussion on Clerks 2 vs. Jackass 2 was less than stimulating?
Carry on!
Posted by Baychuk on September 27th, 2006Hey man, I didn’t mean it in spite. When I read it myself I can see it sounds like a jab at you, but it wasn’t meant like that. Honestly. Was only meant as a joke.
It’s me who’s sorry.
Posted by Henrik on September 27th, 2006Leave a Reply